It kinda sounds like you’re standing ready to assassinate the democratic candidate and you’re just waiting for my approval to pull the trigger. What exactly is your point?
It kinda sounds like you’re standing ready to assassinate the democratic candidate and you’re just waiting for my approval to pull the trigger. What exactly is your point?
I mean yeah, most of the people that hang out here didn’t want him to be the candidate to begin with. But that has little to do with who you’d vote for given these options.
I could not find the 47 grams figure on the page you linked, where is that stated exactly?
I commend your optimism, but personally I’m not sure automation is actually going to carry us through this in the time frames that we need. This population problem is going to hit really hard in the next twenty to thirty years. I don’t think we’re going to fully automate the world economy in that time.
The problems listed in the article are real. we’ve built a system:
Both of these are going to fall apart if the population stops growing. The smaller group of working age people won’t be enough to support the amount of retirees, and without population growth there’s no economic growth.
It’s sad that economists correctly see all this coming but then conclude that the only solution is “make more babies.” It’s short term thinking almost by definition, because in the limit it’s rather obvious that at some point we will not have the resources to support any more people. And the closer we get to that limit the less each individual person will have (even worse when wealth is not equally distributed).
Unfortunately I don’t see any economist putting forth a plan that accepts population decline and alters the system to account for it. It wouldn’t be easy but it seems no one is even trying.
VW is good at making cars, but bad at software. They’ve had to delay the introduction of new models (Golf, ID.3) because of software issues. Rivian has sort of the opposite problem: their production lines sit still often because of problems in the supply chain.
Volkswagen has the expertise to solve Rivian’s production and supplier problems, and the cash they will need to survive and develop some cheaper models (the EV market is stagnating right now for a lack of budget options, and Rivian only sells trucks and SUVs). And they’re hoping Rivian software engineers can help them fix their software woes.
The essence of capitalism in one sentence.
I guess I can pick another number x to be closest to but it has the same problem unless I can guarantee it’s in the set. And successfully picking a number in the set is the problem to begin with! Foiled again!
It seems to me that, since the set of real numbers has a total ordering, I could fairly trivially construct some choice function like “the element closest to 0” that will work no matter how many elements you remove, without needing any fancy axioms.
I don’t know what to do if the set is unordered though.
What if you couldn’t see all the levers. Like every set of levers was inside a warehouse with a guy at a desk who says “just tell me which one you want and I’ll bring it out for you.”
Yup, just like that
Apologies. I’m from a country where the meaning of the period and comma is reversed compared to the US, so I did it this way out of habit.
Honestly, I think it may be possible to build entire roads with enough crushed metal elements in the asphalt/concrete and a slight low power charge throughout the entire surface would be able to keep any vehicle battery at a steady charge.
You might be underestimating how much power a car consumes while driving. For example, a Tesla model 3 has an efficiency of about 130 Wh/km in mild weather at highway speeds. Assuming that on the highway you’ll travel 100 km/h, that means you’ll use 130*100 = 13.000 Wh/h, a constant power draw of 13kW. That’s enough to power perhaps 8-12 houses on average.
A km of road could have, let’s say, 200 cars on it (4 lanes, 20m per car). That means you’d need to pump about 2.6 megawatts of power into every kilometer of road to keep them all topped up.
EDIT: fucked up math
Semmelweis discovered that a particular type of infection was much less likely to occur when doctors washed their hands with chlorinated lime water between doing an autopsy and examining a patient. However he did not know why or how this worked, and did not discover microorganisms (which were already observed by Antoni Van Leeuwenhoek some ~180 years earlier).
The regular ones are one of my favorite ramen packet brands. I’ve never tried the 2x or 3x spicy types. I could see 2x being good because you definitely build up a tolerance and I find the normal ones don’t quite give the same kick anymore. 3x seems excessive but who knows.
You can buy the spicy sauce in a bottle, I have one in the fridge and throw it on my rice regularly. I like the noodles personally (not the carbonara flavor that seems to be popular now, it’s not for me). Maybe Korean style ramyun is just not your thing.
Ironically though, I could see how a misogynist might conflate the two.
She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that.
Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever.
If you want to claim she’s lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She’s also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
Maybe. On the other hand, changing out your candidate after one debate doesn’t inspire much confidence. And you lose the advantage a sitting president usually has in elections.
A new candidate might indeed do better, but the DNC is risk averse as hell. I don’t see them having the balls to make a move like this.